HHS Issues New Medicaid Rules Protecting Same-Sex Couples, Kinda

Posted on June 12th, 2011 by Katherine Franke

Last Friday Heath and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued new regulations instructing states that they could “offer same-sex couples many of the same financial and asset protections available to opposite-sex couples when a partner is entering a nursing home or care facility.”  The new rules relate to states’ ability to place a lien on the home of a medicaid beneficiary in a nursing facility as a means of “spending down” their assets, or if the person is not expected to be discharged from the facility and return home.   Under the federal regs, states may not place a lien on the home of a medicaid beneficiary in a nursing home if their spouse, child under 21, disabled child, or sibling is living in the home.

Under the new regs a “State can have a policy or rule not to pursue liens when the same-sex spouse or domestic partner of the Medicaid beneficiary continues to lawfully reside in the home.”  In essence, States are given permission to treat the same-sex partners of the medicaid beneficiary the same as they would a spouse or other family member.

“Low-income same-sex couples are too often denied equal treatment and the protections offered to other families in their greatest times of need,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in a release announcing the rule change. “This is now changing. Today’s guidance represents another important step toward ensuring that the rights and dignity of every American are respected by their government.”

Of course this is a positive change in the law, though not a bold one.  The new regs don’t require but merely permit states to interpret the medicaid rules in a way that won’t render the same-sex partners of medicaid beneficiaries homeless.  Noone will be surprised if many states elect not to adopt this interpretation of family member.

Some commentators have noted that a repeal of DOMA will go a long way toward solving this problem.  But I don’t think that’s quite right.  It’s worth noting here that the issue is not only one of treating same-sex couples as if they were married, but a larger issue of marital status discrimination.  As we get closer and closer to repeal of DOMA and more states allowing same-sex couples to marry we want to avoid a situation where same-sex couples must marry in order to gain the benefits now made available to married different-sex couples.  When the day comes that same-sex couples are allowed to marry, my hope is that this rule – along with others that have been interpreted to include domestic partners – not be narrowed so that it recognizes only those couples who do marry.  My worry here is that winning the right to marry not collapse into a requirement that we marry in order to retain benefits that we now have as domestic partners or other types of kin.

The HHS letter announcing the change is available here.


  1. HHS Issues New Medicaid Rules (Sort of) Protecting Same-Sex Couples http://t.co/I1GiksJ

  2. RT @GenderSexLaw HHS Issues New Medicaid Rules (Sort of) Protecting Same-Sex Couples http://t.co/OGPVYsx

  3. HHS Issues New Medicaid Rules (Sort of) Protecting Same-Sex Couples http://t.co/I1GiksJ

  4. US: HHS Issues New Medicaid Rules Protecting Same-Sex Couples, Kinda http://t.co/jUwmQNP

  5. Description.. The Independent Democratic Conference today reaffirmed its support for marriage equality and released a report showing that New York State stands to generate some 391 million in increased economic activity revenue and savings during the three years after it is made law. ….

  6. A pattern is emerging that troubles marriage advocates. .During a four-and-a-half-month window in 2008 nearly 18 000 same-sex couples were legally married in California just before voters passed a marriage-protection amendment. Now years later a few of these same couples are reappearing to challenge statutes that undergird marriage.

  7. Definitely imagine that that you said. Your favourite reason appeared to be at the net the
    easiest factor to bear in mind of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed whilst other
    folks consider worries that they just don’t recognise about.
    You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest as well as defined
    out the whole thing with no need side-effects , other people could take a
    signal. Will likely be again to get more. Thank you

    My weblog – Ellen Worcester

Add a comment

Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.



"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton Hiring HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.